Climate Change: Facts? Opinions? Dilemmas?

The Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 2005 delivered at International Statistical
Institute, 55th Session Sydney 2005

R.J.S. Beeton
School of Natural and Rural Systems Management
University of Queensland
Gatton, 4343, Australia
bob.beeton@uqg.uq.edu.au

1. A contested world
Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, observed in 1972 (Popper, 1999) that all science is problem
solving. I take Popper's arguments to heart and believe that we need much better problem solving than we
have had in the greenhouse debate. I am presenting these ponderings with a background; I Chair Australia’s
State of the Environment Advisory Committee. My colleagues and I cannot avoid having a publishable
opinion on the state of greenhouse knowledge and climate change on March 30th 2006.

Greenhouse is not a simple scientific debate. It is the application of many scientific and some other
paradigms to establish strongly held and contested belief systems. At its most simple it is a debate between
the technological pessimists and the technological optimists, but this simplicity is inadequate and it carries
with it overtones of all the ways in which we think.

The problem is on contested ground in which the battle for funding, policy, management supremacy
and economic dominance is waged. We divide between nationalists and globalists as well as into many
contesting groups who apply all the models of control available to ensure conformity of thought within the
group. The irony is that good science demands the opposite. At the foundation of these problems is the
dimensionality of our thinking. This can be represented as a cube (Figure 1) (Beeton,2004) that is often
distorted into a twisted polygon by the exercise of power. The dimensions of the figure are defined by the
three continuua of judgement, namely the quantitative to the qualitative; the objective to the subjective; and
scientific knowledge to community knowledge. Scattered around the figure and attempting to distort it are
the various inhabitants of any lobbying zoo, including the greenhouse zoo. But zoos are ultimately made up
of individuals. Individuals develop perspectives of reality based on life experiences and social interactions.
These are expressed as beliefs, values and attitudes and ultimately behaviour. Being part of a group or
culture influences behaviour, so that shared cultural elements are reinforced and response becomes
predictable and comfortable. Being part of a cultural group can provide benefits. However, where new
issues arise or new ideas are introduced ‘group think’ can limit acceptance of new and differing ideas. This
has major implications for finding and defining problems and for the generation of solutions (Gleeson et al
2004).
 Objective, qualitative, Subjective, qualitative,
community-knowledge community-knowledge based
based management management
(Anthropology) (Community Delphi)

Objective, qualitative,
scientific-knowledge
based management Subjective, qualitative,
(Expert Delphi) scientific-knowledge
based management
(Pressure groups green,

Qualitative
neo pagan)

Objective, quantitative,
community-knowledge
based management
(Sociology) Subjective, quantitative,
Quantitative

led ity
community-knowledge

ow un
ge
kn mm
based management

o
ge C
(Community monitoring)

led c
ow tifi
kn cien
S
Objective, quantitative, Objective Subjective
Subjective, quantitative,
scientific-knowledge scientific-knowledge
based management based management
(Scientific) (Pressure groups;
green and industry?)

Figure 1. The relationship between ways of knowing about nature that inform thinking about
management of nature.
Where values are being incorporated in policy the process is often not explicit. This creates difficulties
in defining exactly which (and whose) values are being included and excluded at any given time. It also
impedes the identification and creation of new, more creative policies that reflect a broader range of values.

The importance of beliefs and values lies in their deep, underlying influence upon thought and action.
We need to understand the complexity of such interrelationships. We also need a way of conducting
dialogues that enable reflection upon both the breadth and depth of values and beliefs in the policy making
process. In this way, new, integrated understandings can emerge, and with them strategies for the renewal of
policies (Gleeson et al, 2004).

This is not simple for governments who are always confronted with the need to reconcile the
dimensions of the debate that reflect “community thinking“. Consequently the interplay of power that is
peculiar to jurisdictions will always give a particular local flavour to the problem, its interpretation and
application. Power is however not uniform in its application and expert opinion will suggest solutions using,
clever biological and biophysical models, clever legal models and even clever political models called
compromises or visionary acts, depending on one’s perspective. The models can be more or less objective,
more or less scientific and more or less reflective of community views.

2. What do we know
I will not even start to review the greenhouse literature; its growth is exponential. It is proven that the
greenhouse effect is essential to life on earth. It is proven that climatic change occurs. It is likely that
greenhouse instability (whatever that means) is a factor, among many, that influences the long term cycles of
climatic variability that we can observe. In addition to greenhouse we have cycles of solar activity, orbital
abnormalities and serendipitous events such as volcanic eruptions and tectonic disruption of global oceanic
circulation. All these occur on different scales and time cycles and it would be reasonable to postulate that
they interact. Further it seems reasonable to postulate that change, when it occurs, is not always gradual or
linear or in a predictable direction. The fundamental problem is that all of this variance makes up natural
“noise”. The separation of the signal from the noise is not always possible, in the short run at least. Needless
to say statisticians should have an important role to play. The problem is they are often misunderstood or
abused because what they do is aid judgment, not perform magic.

It can be statistically demonstrated that CO 2 equivalent atmospheric change has occurred and that this
is correlated with short run temperature change. Traditionally these trends started with the industrial
revolution, however, it could be hypothesised that they go back to the development and spread of agriculture.
The problem is what is really happening? What is the policy development model? What is the cost of being
right? And what is the cost of being wrong?

There are many good reasons to be more efficient in energy use and many good arguments to use
sources of energy with less environmental impact than the burning of fossil fuel. These include an overall
reduction of the human ecological footprint and the consequential protection of biodiversity, the protection
of wetlands from acidification and chemicalisation and the collapse of coastal and freshwater ecosystems.
The list is very long and often we don’t really know what the effects are (Anon 2002; Australia SOE 2001 ).
In addition are the impacts on human health. Any strategy that addresses this list can almost be seen as
greenhouse abatement which after all is usually good environmental management.

To deal with such complexity there is a demand for consistent data collected over time, objective
interpretations free from the influence of pressure groups and interpretations that include uncertainty and the
issues of measurement. Australia has since 1996 used a five yearly State of the Environment Report to the
Australian Parliament as such a tool. An independent committee, supported by the Department of
Environment and Heritage, is charged with objectively reporting the scientific facts and its interpretation of
indicators across eight themes. One theme is atmosphere including greenhouse. The Committee has set
climate variability as the issue for reporting and is collecting data on indicators that can be used to
understand change. The indicators are: variations in the southern oscillation index; rainfall trends; rainfall
extremes; temperature trends; occurrence of temperature extremes; extreme weather-related events;
greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations; trends in greenhouse gas emissions and national greenhouse gas
response. Having collected the indicator data the challenge will be to understand what it means. This will
always be contested territory.

3. Models, damned lies and models

Much of the greenhouse debate rests upon the assumption that models represent reality. But analysis at
this level does not address the question of causation and trends; it merely describes what is happening at the
time. In fact most public debate is determined by journalistic criteria (Sandman, 1998). In such a context
four biases influence the cycles of action and reaction: alarm prevails over reassurance; extremes over the
middle; opinions over data; and outrage (the elements that make people angry) over hazard (the objective
mathematical odds). This is well illustrated by a simple scan of recent articles in New Scientist and the wider
internet using the key word “greenhouse” (done on November 15 th 2004). Articles with headlines that
subscribe to the Sandman principals dominate in New Scientist with the ratios for alarmist to neutral to
technical being 5½:3:1 and for the wider internet at a ratio of alarmist to reassuring of 5:1. Some memorable
headlines include “Meltdown! artic wildlife on the brink of catastrophe”; “Fiddling with emissions as the
planet burns"; "Climate change heralds thirsty times ahead"; "Two years to save the world" and "Great
Barrier Reef to be decimated by 2050".

In fact any model is at best a hypothesis machine. The real skill is in adjustment, measurement and
more adjustment overtime. The application of statistics is in the measurement and interpretation of
measurement. The problem is that the requirements of modern politics make this most difficult. The nature
of the political dialogue is such that answers, not equivocation, are expected.

The pressure for this fuels the furious debate that occurs across a number of literatures. Paltridge
(2004) mounts a spirited attack on "The politicised science of greenhouse climate change”. Beder (1999)
mounts an equally spirited attack on "Climatic confusion and corporate collusion: hijacking the greenhouse
debate”. In the popular media journalists are less inhibited with gems such as "In the greenhouse debate,
beware sceptics and other fossil fools" (Monbiot, 2004). I leave it to your imagination as to what headlines
one can find on the Web. The challenge for the Australian State of Environment Advisory Committee is
how to make objective calls in this environment. Some understanding of how environmental problems work
illustrates the dilemma.

4. What is the problem

Part of the problem lies with the phenomenon recognised by Newson (1992) as the basis for the
development of the environmental movement. Newsome's proposition was that environmental progress was
dependent upon cycles of dramatic events interacting with the media; a phenomenon previously recognised
by Downs (1972). This is hugely divergent from the model of science that Popper saw as being: (1) the old
problem; (2) the formation of tentative theories; (3) attempts of elimination through critical discussion
including experimental testing and (4) the new problems that arise from the critical discussion of our
theories. Popper asserts that this model allows scientific progress to be made. The progress of scientific
reasoning over the years since support the proposition that, while science advocacy is important, good
science is very important. However scientists are trapped by the nature of modern society that demands
media savvy scientists who can bring public support to their particular activity and influence on funding
priorities. This situation is aggravated by the advocacy of some environmental and sceptical groups who,
because of belief and understanding of modern media, always prefer opinion to data and regard statisticians
as an unnecessary distraction. The irony is that science without statistics is for practical purposes impossible.

Part of the problem lies in the way we describe problems themselves. Problems are essentially a mix
of socially constructed desired realities and a current reality or predicted reality that is derived from direct
measurement, models or "public opinion" (Beeton, Carter and Hocking, 2003). Clearly both the desired
reality and components of the current reality don't conform to comfortable "scientifically pure" constructions
of the world. Popper probably would be most disappointed with the greenhouse debate. The debate is often
not about the progress of science depending on elimination through critical discussion (including
experimental testing), the celebration of invalidation and the suggestion of new things to test. Rather the
debate has become a test of strength on a critical matter.

5. The way forward

Not just greenhouse but many debates that rely on science clearly are so complex and have been so
subject to the perversity of modern media that we need better ways of providing some surety. We need to be
sure about what we know. We need to be equally sure about what we are uncertain about and how that
uncertainty occurs. We need to set priorities by methods other than the media circus.

The complex adaptive systems that make up the planet and its biophysical and economic systems will
need better institutions, people who feel safe to do science with some protection from the tyranny of the
mob. Holling (1978 and 1995) models of adaptive management and Popper's models of good science suggest
the way forward; the challenge will be to create the institutions that can make it happen. Good
environmental reporting is the start of a good system. This reporting must extend to communicating around
the speed humps of the media so that the necessary dialogues on objectives, current condition and trends can
occur.

These institutions should include those who fund science, those who communicate science and those
who develop policy. For all a reasonableness in dialogue is important as is the celebration of the invalidation
that underlies both scientific progress and statistics. Where the science is uncertain, an adaptive and
precautionary approach is needed. The problem with this is how to manage the contradictions it brings to the
ways we have done business over the last three decades. The Australian environmental reporting legislation
is an excellent start. In the 2006 State of Environment report we hope to make some progress on interpreting
the data, not hiding behind the uncertainties and being honest about the issues of measurement and
interpretation. Time will tell if such a cool breeze is acceptable in what is a white hot, but not necessarily
useful, debate.

REFERENCES
Anon (2002) The state of the nation’s ecosystems : measuring the lands, waters, and living resources
of the United States / The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment
Cambridge University Press
Australia State of the Environment (2001) Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the
Environment and Heritage, CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and
Heritage, Canberra.
Beder S (1999) Climatic Confusion and Corporate Collusion: Hijacking the Greenhouse Debate The
Ecologist ,March / April 1999 119-122
Beeton R.J.S., Carter R.W. and Hockings M.T. (2003) Environmental Problem Solving
The University of Queensland
Beeton R.J.S (2004) Foreword to Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act? Proceedings of
Royal Zoological Society of NSW Forum 2003 in press
Downs, A (1972) Up and down with ecology: the issue-attention cycle; The Public Interest 38-50.
Gleeson T, Turner C, Drinan J and Beeton R (2004) Digging Deeper: Reflections on a Symposium on
Australian Values Australian Values Rural Policies: Proceedings of a Symposium held in Old
Parliament House, Canberra in the Year 2000 Tony Gleeson, Cate Turner and John Drinan Eds 2004
RIRDC Publication No 04/RIRDC Project Published in 2004
Holling, C. S., Ed. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York, John
Wiley.
Holling, C. S. (1995) What barriers? What bridges? In Barriers and bridges to the renewal of
ecosystems and institutions. eds L. H. Gunderson, Holling C.S. & Light S.S. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Newson, (1992) Ed Managing the human impact on the natural environment : patterns and processes
Belhaven Press, London
Paltridge G (2004) The Politicised Science of Greenhouse Climate Change Quadrant October 2004
Popper K (1999) All life is problem solving Routledge London and NY
Sandman, P.M. 1998. Risk = Hazard + Outrage in The Code: Delivering Results, Minerals Council of
Australia Environmental Workshop. Minerals Council of Australia, Dickson, ACT, Australia
 Résumé
Le débat sur l’effet de serre est placé dans le contexte de la philosophie de Popper de la
science et le rôle de l'auteur en tant que Membre du Comité d’Etude sur l'environnement, de l’Etat
d’Australie. La complexité du débat sur l’effet de serre est explorée et la proposition est faite que
c'est une discussion contestée impliquant des systèmes de pensée concurrents et des paradigmes
scientifiques. La bataille implique les groupements qui appliquent tous les modèles disponibles de
commande pour assurer la conformité de la pensée dans le groupe. L'ironie est que le bon usage de
la science exige l'opposé. À la base de ces problèmes se trouve la dimensionnalité de notre pensée.
Dans ce contexte les individus développent des perspectives de réalité basées sur des expériences de
la vie et des interactions sociales. Ceux-ci sont exprimés comme croyance, valeurs et attitudes et
finalement comportement. Là où des valeurs sont incorporées dans la politique le processus n'est
souvent pas explicite. Ceci crée des difficultés pour définir exactement quelles valeurs, et les
valeurs de qui, sont inclues et exclues à un moment donné. Il empêche également l'identification et
la création de nouvelles politiques, plus créatrices qui reflètent une plus large gamme de valeurs.

Au cours du débat sur l’effet de serre la distinction entre le signal et le bruit n'est pas toujours
possible, tout du moins à court terme. Inutile de dire que les statisticiens devraient avoir un rôle
important à jouer. Le problème est qu’ils sont souvent mal compris ou maltraités parce que ce qu’ils
font, c’est éclairer notre jugement, ce ne sont pas des magiciens.

Une grande partie du débat sur l’effet de serre repose sur l’assomption que les modèles
représentent la réalité tandis que le débat publique est déterminé par des critères journalistiques
comptant quatre thèses connues, notamment : l'alarme prévaut sur la réassurance ; les avis extrêmes
prévalent sur les avis tempérés ; les opinions prévalent sur les données scientifiques; et l’outrage sur
le l’idée de risque. Ceci est bien illustré par quelques mémorables titres de journaux récents
comprenant «Fonte des glaces! Faune arctique à la marge de la catastrophe "; "Mésentente sur les
émissions de gaz alors que la planète brûle" ; "Le changement de climat, signal d’une sècheresse
généralisée proche" ; "Deux ans pour sauver le monde", ou encore "La grande barrière de corail sera
décimée d'ici 2050".

En fait n'importe quel modèle est au mieux une machine à créer des hypothèses; la vraie
compétence est dans l'ajustement, la mesure, et plus d'ajustement encore avec le temps. L'utilisation
des statistiques doit se faire dans la mesure et l'interprétation de la mesure. Le problème est que les
conditions de la politique moderne rendent ceci plus difficile. La nature du dialogue politique est
telle que des réponses, pas des suppositions, sont attendues. La pression sur ce débat alimente la
discussion orageuse entre littéraires et scientifiques qui sont emprisonnés par la nature de la société
moderne qui ne veut croire qu’à des médias soit disant scientifiques, et sachant attirer le respect.
Cette situation est aggravée par la recommandation de quelques groupes environnementaux qui, en
raison de leur croyance en les média modernes, préfèrent se fier à l'opinion plutôt qu’aux données
scientifiques et considèrent les statisticiens comme une distraction inutile. L'ironie est que la
science sans statistiques est, pour des problèmes pratiques, impossible. De la même manière, à
science incertaine, une approche de précaution est nécessaire. Le problème est de savoir adapter les
contradictions que ce débat entraîne, à notre style de vie, au cours des trois dernières décennies.